Jump to content

Talk:Herobrine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.103.193.166 (talk) at 19:32, 30 March 2024 (→Yet again the notability policy is broken.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Protected edit request on 19 April 2022

I recently created an article about the Minecraft Steve video game character here. A notable aspect of the character is a creepypasta topic named Herobrine, which is discussed at length under its own section at Steve (Minecraft)#Herobrine as well as a paragraph's worth under critical analysis. It is currently a redirect to Minecraft#Cultural_impact, but no one other then an administrator could edit it. It was very recently placed under indefinite, full protection by Ohnoitsjamie because someone had repeatedly attempted to recreate an article that is poorly sourced into mainspace. I am not contesting Ohnoitsjamie's decision to fully protect the redirect or arguing that the prior contents of "Herobrine" in mainspace meets relevant notability guidelines; I am simply making an uncontroversial technical request to change the redirect target from Minecraft#Cultural impact where it is very briefly mentioned in passing to Steve (Minecraft), an action which I am unable to complete on my own because of the increased protection level. Haleth (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I saw your request on my talk page yesterday, but was confused because the Steve link you posted there didn't link to an article (you had Minecraft in lowercase). OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above were originally left at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (permalink) and are posted here for posterity. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie, just to clarify. That was not me editing anonymously. I have never left a post on your talk page. It must have been another editor who stumbled upon the redirect. Haleth (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Several of the categories should be moved from Steve (Minecraft) to this redirect per WP:INCOMPATIBLE, namely Category:Creepypasta, Category:In-jokes, Category:Internet hoaxes, Category:Urban legends, and Category:Video game memes. Normally, I would do this myself, but the redirect is fully protected. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I'm assuming this is uncontroversial in regards to current protection, if not any admin should revert and send this back to discussion here. — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Hi, the "in-joke" category should stay because that is the origin of the character's name, according to reliable sources. "Steve" was part of a joke, though we don't have the specifics of the joke itself. And what is the purpose of populating a redirect with substantial categories which are not redirect-specific ones? Haleth (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth from what I took from the edit requester, these categories pertain to the subject of this redirect specifically, but not to the subject of the redirect target. — xaosflux Talk 23:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Please add Category:Minecraft and italicise the title. Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've added the category but haven't italicised the title given that people won't see it in a redirect. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by NegativeMP1 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Herobrine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article is new and long enough. Sourcing looks good and Earwig checks out, all flagged bits are direct quotes that are properly attributed. Both hooks are interesting and cited inline in the body of the article. QPQ is done so I think this is good to go. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Hi, if I need to review a second nomination I will do so, but the backlog mode states that it only applies to users with more than twenty successful nominations. I do not have twenty past nominations (I think I've had around ten?), and therefore this nomination should be fine. Correct me if I am mistaken. λ NegativeMP1 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the QPQ check tool to the right counts only 10. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If you feel that you have done less than 20 noms this can go forward. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only nine DYK nominations credited on User:NegativeMP1's talk page, a clear indication that no extra QPQ is required in this situation. I'm very sorry that this nomination was inappropriately delayed. Restoring User:PCN02WPS's original tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Herobrine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Second opinion review (@vrxces)

Unfortunately I think this falls short in several areas but not sure if to the point of a WP:QUICKFAIL. The core problem is that the notable aspects of this article are really about an urban legend; the character does not exist, so there is not much to really say in terms of information normally available for a character. So the sourcing would have to be improved by some measure to pass I think. This review is a work in progress but some early initial comments are below. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of at least one more scholar source that is out there that I am yet to integrate text from into the article, and I haven't updated some text related to the article since I cut out a source from CBR. I can agree with the lack of information specifically on the character (since, well, Herobrine isn't exactly a true "character") being lackluster, though I think the article can be worked with even if an extensive amount of work is required as you mentioned. λ NegativeMP1 04:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, for me a WP:QUICKFAIL would be something with the same number of sources where there were little to no WP:RS or the coverage was just so light to suggest there wasn't a lot of hope the article could be improved to standard. The "not a true character" thing isn't a barrier to the GA but more maybe just signalling that the article is trying to do two things at once: discuss the character and discuss the urban legend, which it interweaves a little. Thanks and I hope this isn't so much a disappointment as it is an opportunity to really flesh out the article. Happy to work with you on this and I hope to provide more specific and complete feedback soon. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 and @Vrxces: Should we call this review off? It has been inactive for two weeks, and it's best if we give this article more time. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, has some source issues that might need some work. No barrier to renomination at any time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I agree. I was wondering on whether or not to withdraw for the time being to give this article more time in the oven, especially since I've found other sourcing since the review started. I'm perfectly fine calling this review off. λ NegativeMP1 04:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? checkY Yes, mostly under WP:VGLAYOUT. I'm mindful that this is part character part urban legend so any idiosyncrasies aren't really a problem.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? ☒N Generally not. The article is heavily sourced from the Morton article which, compared with an article with few sources, raises several problems:

  • The Powell thesis is a doctorate thesis, which is fine but as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP it should be used with caution as it may be a primary source.
  • The Menotti paper dedicates a paragraph to describing the general context of Herobrine sourced from the Minecraft Wiki, which I would not call critical commentary. I think there is not much to this sadly beyond a valid use of the source to say that Powell links Herobrine to an example of user-created recordings of video games that evidence how community practices expand the imagination of the game and potential of the medium beyond its niche.
  • The Guinness poll suggests popularity but not so much critical reception, as the source is the views of website users and therefore by extension user-sourced.
  • The Red Bull source is purely descriptive part of a list and strikes me as non-WP:SIGCOV given that it is briefly mentioned as an example of a creepy moment.
  • Unfortunately the Flint et. al. paper is not a strong source. The aim of the paper was to create a mixed reality experience with children's user-generated content to enhance an interactive virtual recreation of a sculpture park. Part of the activity engaged children to create a monster with a backstory to inhabit the world. One paragraph in the paper is directed to observing that one child designed a monster, Brian, that was unexpectedly out of the scope of what the researchers asked for and the researchers saw this as an opportunity to create a lead antagonist. The researchers then discovered the characters was based on the Herobrine meme.
    • So unfortunately the statement The Herobrine character is treated as a mythological destructive character, thus, rather than our initially perceived view that the story might be related to myths, in response to our informants it developed more similarities with superhero characters and draws directly from Minecraft folklore is not referring to a critical assessment of Herobrine in general, but in reference to the monster's inclusion in the narrative context of the project, which the Wikipedia article text extrapolates to something quite wider.

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? ☒N

  • See above re. how the Flint et al. paper is depicted in the article text.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? checkY Sources cited, purpose stated mostly.

  • Is the Minecraft Wiki the likely originating source of that image?
  • I note the photo is CC-licensed and does not need a justification.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?

  • Reception and legacy:
    • The Powell thesis as cited is not evidence for mainstream journalistic opinion.
    • VG247 place Herobrine in a list of the best "fan works" and not "creations of the Minecraft community", there is a meaningful semantic difference between these.
    • Providing context to mentioning Gabriel Menotti by name, you may wish to specify his current academic tenure, given he is an associate professor.


Original review (@TrademarkedTWOrantula)

Oh my God. Herobrine's here. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna pass this GA review over to @Vrxces. I have to go somewhere, and unfortunately I have to sleep early. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyvios, per Earwig.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Herobrine's origins, design, characteristics, reception, and impact are all covered within the article.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Obviously.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Herobrine character and original image sighting are correctly tagged. Flickr image of Herorbrine cosplayer is freely licensed.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Render of Herobrine and screenshot are relevant (of course they are), and the cosplayer image is, well... passable.
7. Overall assessment.
  • Wait, that's all the coverage there is to be found?
  • Green tickY No considerable copyvios, according to Earwig. Top result is 14% similarity.
  • Green tickY No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
  • Green tickY This page is stable.
  • Green tickY This is the first GA review.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet again the notability policy is broken.

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WAX are irrelevant, the fact that a obscure Minecraft reference can get an article and featured on WP:DYK when one of the most popular characters of the 90s got redirected means that the notability policy is broken beyond repair, and Wikipedia is no longer trustable on what is considered "notable". Well i'm declaring now that my donation money is "not notable", and will not be given to Wikipedia any more. Consider me {{RETIRED}}. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herobrine&oldid=1216398621"